Of mice and misinformation: Sammon joins other Fox News personalities in spreading stimulus falsehood
SUMMARY: Fox News' Bill Sammon claimed that "[p]eople look at" the economic recovery bill "and see ... some mouse is being protected in [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's district" -- echoing a falsehood previously forwarded by several other Fox News hosts and reporters. The bill, in fact, contains no language allocating funding to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse in San Francisco wetlands.
On the February 15 edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington deputy managing editor Bill Sammon advanced the debunked claim that the economic recovery bill includes funding to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse in San Francisco wetlands, a falsehood previously forwarded by others on Fox News. Sammon said of the recovery bill: "People look at this thing and see, you know, some mouse is being protected in [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's district." In fact, even the House Republican leadership aide from whom the claim reportedly originated acknowledged that the bill does not contain any language directing funds to San Francisco wetlands or the salt marsh harvest mouse living in them.
As Media Matters for America has documented, the spurious mouse tale leapt from the House GOP to The Washington Times, several Fox News hosts, and at least one Fox News reporter. The falsehood also was repeated on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, and in a graphic aired on Fox News' Hannity.
After writing that "there isn't any such money in the bill" for the mouse, The Plum Line blogger Greg Sargent wrote on February 12 that the claim originated in an email from a "House Republican leadership staffer" who, when contacted by Sargent, "conceded that the claim by conservative media that the mouse money is currently in the bill is a misstatement." San Jose Mercury News staff writer Paul Rogers subsequently reported on February 13 that Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), originated the claim and said that "[t]here is no language in the bill that says this money will go to this project."
From the Mercury News article:
Trouble is, the facts were mostly wrong. But the lightning speed of Internet news enabled it to take on urban legend stature within hours.
The tale began Wednesday [February 11], when Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent an e-mail to reporters and political leaders that noted Republican staff members have been asking federal agencies how they would spend the stimulus money.
"One response? Thirty million dollars for wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area -- including work to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse," wrote Steel.
The Washington Times then wrote a story citing Steel and claiming that $30 million for the mouse project is contained in the bill. The paper suggested the money was put there by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. Blogger Matt Drudge, whose Web site receives 26 million hits a day, posted a link to that story.
[...]
Steel, however, said the Washington Times story is incorrect.
"There is no language in the bill that says this money will go to this project," Steel told the San Jose Mercury News. "There are large pots of money in the bill that go to various agencies. One of those agencies said the salt marsh harvest mouse project is something we'd do if you gave us the money."
Pelosi spokesman Drew Hamill agreed that funding for the mouse is not in the bill, and said she did not lobby for it to be on any list.
Then where did the $30 million figure come from, if it's not in the bill? It turns out that $30 million is the total amount that the California Coastal Conservancy, a state agency, recommended more than a month ago to numerous federal agencies, looking for lists of "shovel ready" projects as part of the stimulus bill planning.
The conservancy's wish list included five major ongoing wetlands restoration projects totaling nearly 4,000 acres, said civil engineer Steve Ritchie, a Coastal Conservancy staff member who helped draw it up. And the federal Army Corps of Engineers included all five projects on its own list of possible ways to spend stimulus money.
The projects, which range from Napa County to Silicon Valley, involve moving levees, creating islands and converting former industrial salt ponds back to marshes. Each could begin by year's end and would benefit dozens of species, including salmon, steelhead trout, ducks, egrets, and yes, the endangered mouse, Ritchie said.
[...]
Even if the stimulus passes, there's no guarantee the projects will get the money, since they're not named in the bill. That will be up to the Army Corps of Engineers, which does everything from harbor dredging to building dams to restoring wetlands.
From the February 15 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: I mean, in the end, for all the debate -- I mean, I think we would all agree what's going to end up being -- marking the success or failure of Mr. Kristol's thousand pages is whether or not it works. Is it big enough? Is it effective enough? Is it stimulative enough? What's your sense of that, Bill?
SAMMON: Well, if it works, certainly the Democrats will get credit. If it doesn't, the Republicans will probably stand to gain. I think the problem is that the public has come to view this thing as -- it wasn't just Republicans calling this pork. Chuck Schumer said this is full of porky amendments. And I think this has turned into a public relations disaster for Obama. People look at this thing and see, you know, some mouse is being protected in Pelosi's district, some rail lines being built in Harry Reid's state. They look at the welfare reform that Bill Clinton had enacted as basically have been undone. I think as we get deeper into the details of this bill, it's going to get uglier and uglier. So yes, Obama won, but he won ugly. He wanted bipartisan support; he got virtually none. He wanted 80 votes in the Senate; he got 60, and he had to send a plane to get that 60th vote and sort of limp across the finish line. I'm not sure this is the big victory that he had hoped for.
These PEOPLE try to be mind readers! Over and over...they call their lies...OPINION! They state it as fact and they repeat as many times as possible...hoping that somewhere, somehow...IT STICKS! That is called PROPAGANDA!
Hey, coach, at Fox the word FOR "news" IS "Propaganda". The First Amendment does not require a distinction. There must be a loop-hole somewhere about a propaganda network masquerading as "news". "I got a lawyer friend who knows about these things." (Stanley Kawolski in "Streetcar Named 'Desire'")
Sammon says:
I think the problem is that the public has come to view this thing as -- it wasn't just Republicans calling this pork. Chuck Schumer said this is full of porky amendments. And I think this has turned into a public relations disaster for Obama.
Gallup polling says otherwise:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx
How can you say that, jj? As Sammon says, they got some mouses that they're pertectin' in San Francisco. Bet they're gay and liberal mouses, too!!!
Those San Fran mice are also kosher. They don't eat porky amendments.
I really enjoyed my brined turkey this thanksgiving, I'm betting the mice are quite tasty! And I'm betting them san fran mice have really nice looking apartments.
I read that as "brained" turkey, and I thought, "What an inhumane way to kill it."
I apologize. I didn't read all the comments, and didn't realize you linked to the same polling.
Subject: FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE
** FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE **
On February 14, a Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organisation lying, concealing or distorting information.
The court reversed the US$425,000 jury verdict of 2000 that was in favour of journalist Jane Akre, who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. On August 18, 2000, a six?person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted or slanted" story about the widespread use of Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically engineered growth hormone given to dairy cows.
The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there there is no hard, fast and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. The Court of Appeals, in its six?page written decision, held that the Federal Communications Commission's position against news distortion is only a "policy", not a promulgated law, rule or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling was handed down, saying that it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
Wow , what news, too bad it is 6 years old. Just the other night I heard Rachel Olbermann tell a blatant lie, would you like to discuss that issue. Or is it Rachel Matthews, oh I forget.
Wow , what news, too bad it is 6 years old.
Yeah, it's bad that Faux has had a legal right to lie to the public for a minimum of 6 years, but anyone with an ounce of <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> integrity knows they have been lying to their sad, myopic base since Day 1.
Thank you SO MUCH, pros2pros. This is the kind of story that clears up some of our misconceptions about intentional lying by the "news" media. If Fox can be defended and "vindicated" (Man, I love THAT!) for lying "on purpose", then what about advertisers on the tube (excuse me, I meant panel)? So lying IS protected by the First Amendment. I wish you had provided a "link" so that we could send this to everybody who STILL values the truth (truthiness).
I have mixed feelings about that story. On the one hand, I'm glad that News Media are given wide-ranging protection. I think the Founding Fathers wanted it that way, so that public officials would have a watchdog.
Unfortunately, today's news organizations have sold their souls for a buck and squandered their Constitutional Mandate.
The watchdog has become a lapdog.
of course it is legal for media to lie what do you think abc,nbc,cbs,cnn and msnbc have been doing
I am not sure if you are correct on your assessment of Fox Noise! During my search, I could find no ruling that said a News Organization can purpusely lie about various public policies and stories!
Fox blind mice,
Worse than lice
Lied more than thrice, Lied more than thrice,
They squeak distortions, their errors are rife
They cut off the truth with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a sight in your life
As Fox blind mice?
Mary, you got me not only singing out loud, but LOLing! Nice work!
pshaw! amatuers...
I left my mouse in San Francisco
Down in the marsh, she calls to me.
To be where little salt marsh flats
Resist developing habitats!
The morning fog may chill the air
I don't care!
My mouse waits there in San Francisco
Above the blue and windy sea
When I come home my mouse, to San Francisco,
Your protected golden chute will shine for me!
I bow to you, snoop....that is a gem. Hope further mouse tales will emerge ;-)
I see the marsh mouse arising.
I see some money on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin.
I see Fox babblers today.
Chorus:
Dont go around uptight,
San Fran liberals! What a fright--
There's a bad mouse on the rise.
ask and ye shall receive!
Two salt water mice go round the outside,
round the outside, round the outside.
Two salt water mice go round the outside,
round the outside, round the outside.
Female Voice
"Ooooohhhhh!"
Guess who's back, back again
Snoopy's back, tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back,
guess who's back, guess who's back,
guess who's back, guess who's back,
guess who's back...
Verse 1:
I've created a monster, cuz nobody wants to
See salt water mouses they want gravy
I'm stimulated
Well if you want gravy, then this is what I'll give ya
A little bit of marsh and a bill to deliver
Some spending that will jumpstart my heart quicker
Then a shock when the press stands and delivers
For republicans who aren't cooperating
Obama's rocking the table while they's operating "Hey"
You waited this long to stop debating
Cuz I'm back, I'm on the rag and ovulating
I know republicans are busy underrating
But your party's hissy fits aren't complicating
So the RNC won't let it be
Or let it be me so let me see
They tried to shut it down on fox TV
But it feels so stimulating to me
So come on dip, bum on your lips
Wipe the smirk off your lips and buck up your snits
And get ready cuz this bill's about to get heavy
Obama won this big time, "F U Rushie!"
Chorus:
Now this looks like a job to me
So everybody block out all the righties
Cuz we need a stimulant U see,
Cuz it feels so empty without me!
I said this looks like a job to me
So everybody block out all the righties
Cuz we need a stimulant U see,
Cuz it feels so empty without me!
There's a fog out on the Bay And the mice have lost their way We'll be funded soon they said But they've lost their marsh instead...
Please, fox is wrong Please fox is once again wrong For that they'll lose no sleep....
And it only goes to show Fox says funding's got to go Ask those phonies on t.v. there's too many there to see.
Sleaze, fox is wrong. How can they be very wrong
Now it's past my bed I know Snoop, I've really got to go Fox will lie past break of day No mouse funding there today...etc.
And the cheese stands alone.
By George! Well done Mary. And from the Magical Mystery Tour too.
I was hoping someone would add more verses ;-)
Roses are red,
Meeces are brown,
No money for you!!!! I wrote that so DickCheney has a joke to tell.
Great turn on an oldie.
Randy
By this metric, EVERY project ever funded is PORK, because the money eventually gets spent on something. Face it, this is the GOP's desperate attempt to gin up outrage over trivia. That's the modern GOP: making mountains out of mouse holes.
Randy
That's true. I actually heard a reporter this weekend refer to part of the stimulus bill getting spent on state road building projects, and said it met the definition of "pork".
That being the case, not all pork is wasteful or unnecessary.
Post the section of the bill that states money will go to the marsh.
CONNECT THE DOTS moron..y'know like what you wantewd Bush to do on Aug. 6, 2001.
There's a big difference between an environmental project that will help many species of animals and some focused effort to save one particular type of mouse. You have to admit that the framing is rather misleading.
Post the section of the bill that states money will go to the marsh. If not, I'll consider you a liar.
Just show us. You obviously did the research and have the facts in hand. Present them. Can you?
Apparently not.
Okay you win. Next. By the way, which red states are taking Federal money? Or are they going to refuse it. Lindsey Graham was asked if he'd for go money for his state but guess what...he'll take. Dick, you should start worrying Socialized Health Care, Federally Funded Abortion Clinincs in every city and lifetime pat checks for people who just do not want to work. SAVE THE MEECES.
Which blue states will take the tax cuts? Better yet, which people in Blue states who voted for Obama will voluntarily fork over more of their money in taxes? These arguments are about as relevant as the one you are making above.
Democrats are not against tax cuts for lower and middle class Americans.
"Better yet, which people in Blue states who voted for Obama will voluntarily fork over more of their money in taxes?"
Um... hey there sparky!.....
I'd happily volunteer paying a bit more in taxes so that my fellow citizens can have a country and an economy that works for all and not just a small fraction of greedy slimeballs..... As much as would be needed!
That's called... realizing that I'm in this thing called SOCIETY along with 300 million or so other people and am willing to sacrifice so that even dunderheads like you can go to sleep at night knowing you'd wake your dumb ass up in the morning safe and secure.
And yes... so that little field mice can have their day in court too!
Dickie, my representatives voted FOR the taxes cuts...your SHEEP all voted AGAINST them. So using your ConLogic, YOU will not accept anything in this bill. Thanx for understanding my point. The Repugs want there own way,,,,EARN IT.
No, it's S-T-E-E-L. You're thinking of the head of the RNC. They're talking about John Boehner's spokesperson.
"You're thinking of the head of the RNC."
No, he's just not thinking at all. Typical repube.
Oh, mousy lie! oh mousy lie!
How you run through the black-hearted marshes
Unconstrained by truth or substance,
To creep into the uncomplicated minds of indolent ideologues
Who squeak for restraint,
Caught as vermin in a dull trap of their own insipidness.
Randy
Awesome.
Thank you.
"He wanted bipartisan support; he got virtually none. He wanted 80 votes in the Senate; he got 60, and he had to send a plane to get that 60th vote and sort of limp across the finish line. I'm not sure this is the big victory that he had hoped for."
What a great system. All Republicans have to do is huddle together and stomp their feeth, and it reflects badly on the President.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the stimulus has popular support, and the childish celebrations of the Republicans have put them in a more negative public light. 67 percent approve of Obama's actions, 31 percent approve of what the Republicans are doing. Congressional Democrats get 48 percent approval. But when did reality ever stop FOX from claiming anything?
I would expect you to link to what she said as proof. Or he. Not clear from your fusion of two people...but maybe this is what you're referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHw773EO314
When you start off by saying "speaking of misinformation" we can bet you want to change the subject. The Republicans are lying about marsh mice and the stimulus bill. They don't seem to understand that the government created thousands of jobs during the Depression. These FACTS are rather important to having a decent conversation.
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hopkins
651,087 miles of roads were built or repaired during the New Deal, and by my calculations thats 26 times around the earth. So Rachel actually under estimated the amount by 2 trips around our planet. So I guess you're right, she is misinforming the public.
Har.What a surprise, Appleboy. Rickyrusky was right, the math was absurd. His, anyway.
I do love the wingnuts who have that perfect combination of snarky condescension and being completely wrong. I wonder where they get that from.
I do love the wingnuts who have that perfect combination of snarky condescension and being completely wrong. I wonder where they get that from
Years of practice, suffering from myopic delusions and lack of introspection. Coupled with hubristic authoritarianism. For Father knows best.
Interesting Col, on another thread you are complaining about liberals being compared to nazis and commies but do I detect a little of the same in your calling me Rickyrusky? Pass the hypocricy please!
Maybe he was suggesting that your math was rusky...
Well, I must return and eat some crow, MY research was incorrect and I must offer my apologies to Rachel and her crew.
Would that be "Rachel Olbermann" or Rachel Maddow?
This is kind of funny - Bill Sammon wrote a book called How Al Gore Tried To Steal The Election.
Sammon is a shameless GOP hack. I saw him interviewed about that book, and he said he saw NO Republicans doing anything shady or questionable during the Florida recount, but he saw lots of Democrats cheating.
Looks like Cheney is gone. Probably out having another heart attack.
I just looked at his posts. He called someone a moron for a spelling error, but that’s the way he spelled it himself.
From his first post: Steele says this: "There is no language in the bill that says this money will go to this project," Steel told the San Jose Mercury News.
From his second post: CONNECT THE DOTS moron..y'know like what you wantewd
As for his name, does anyone think Dick Cheney will make it to 2012?
In age? Probably, as long as he has access to the coffin containing his homeland's soil to sleep in during the day.
And a reliable supply of fresh victims.
Cheney hates meeces to pieces.
To put this matter in proper perspective, the source of the acusation regarding the alleged funds for protection of the salt marsh mouse is Michael Steel, spokesperson for John Boehner. John Boehner is one of the most egregious offenders when it comes to misrepresenting and falsely sensationalizing Democratic positions. Why should I believe one word that comes from John Boehner's office? The pattern is all too predicatble...Republicans don't address real issues. They distort and misrepresent issues to create misplaced outrage among an unsophisticated and/or gullible base...a base which, ironically, believes it is better informed because it listens to talk radio and such.
I guess everyone here that says this is not true, has taken the time to read the stimulus bill? Just like your local rep took the time to read the bill before they signed it? So how do we know for a fact that the 4.7 Billion that is set aside in this bill for Capital Improvement and Natioal parks will not be used for that purpose? It could, but we just do not for fact.
The party making the original assertion customarily bears the burden of proving that assertion. Mike Steel, John Boehner and every other right winger making the claim that money is set aside for protection of the salt marsh mouse have not demonstrated that the allegation is true. But they continue to spread the assertion as though it is a given fact. How many people believe that there is a specific provision in the stimulus bill for paying ACORN $5 billion. My point is that everything I have heard from the Republicans thus far has typically proven to be exaggeration, distortion and overblown hyperbole. Why should I believe anything they say? IMO the Republicans, by once again attempting to spark up their base, have hindered legitimate debate over the provisions of the bill due to their dishonesty.
As Spector stated, if more Republicans would have stayed at the bargaining table,(where was Boehner) they could have gotten more things accomplished from their viewpoint. But when they were ordered to vote AGAINST ANY FOR ANY BILL, they retreated to Fox News and DA Limbuagh. They play POLITICS with the future of Americans thinking they are in charge. I won't quote Pres. Obama by saying we won...but I will say YOU LOST. Now go sit in the corner and cry. Creating all the new dunce caps for the Repub is a stimulus.
95 percent of the bill has been available since the start of the process.
Anyhow, the republicans weren't interesting in debating; they wanted to get their own way even though they lost the election big time. I also think it was stupid for Democrats to seek input from republicans on what was largely a spending bill. Republicans are not interested in spending money when Democrats are in charge.
Markb, Spector said they left the table. And remember, this bill was initiated before the election. The Repubs waited until they lost and then decided to walk away from America.
My rep also didn't have a chance to read the Patriot Act. And the difference is that my Senators knew what was in the bill since they both took time to be involved instead of worry about mice.
That's true, we don't know. Many on the right are stating it as fact, but nobody's backing it up.Do you really think it's the responsibility of others to reproduce the entire bill to point out that it's not in there?
This reminds me of the Snail Darter issue years back.Somehow, the smaller the animal,and the weirder the name of that animal, the more it triggers the outrage and/or LOL's of the easily manipulated.
I caught a little bit of Idiocracy on the tube last night, and the parody of Fox News 500 years in the future seems less ridiculous than when I first saw the film.
I though that was a documentary of the Republican Party starting in 2006. That was so realistic....I saw the end of the movie when a smart guy became President so the time line for a documentary could hold true.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.
So what? As I stated on the other thread, Every person who contributed to the bill is a subject matter expert on the part they worked on. They all also have a team of interns, lawyers etc who can (and did) provide expertise on other areas of the bill they didn't work on, thus allowing all involved to quickly come up to speed and be able to make a reasoned ruling on the validity of the subject at hand. Don't like it? Walk into your boss's office tomorrow and tell him that the way you all conduct business is a load of crap. Tell him you demand anyone who is working on a project to drop everything they are doing and become versed in 100% of what the project is rather than being 100% versed on the part they are working on. Do away with the project manager, you obviously don't need one now that everyone is 100% versed on all phases of the project. Heck, you could possibly cut some more heads too - no need for a representative from IT, Operations, Process, HR and Test, you can cut 4 heads now that you have just one person 100% versed in the entire project! And if it adds three months to your delivery date, so what? You reduced headcount. You go girl!
"So how do we know for a fact that the 4.7 Billion that is set aside in this bill for Capital Improvement and Natioal parks will not be used for that purpose?"
One thing you can establish right off the bat is that none the wetland areas of San Francisco Bay fall within a national park.
"How do we know for a fact...4.7 billion...etc." Wish the Repubs had the same attitude about WMD's before the killing started.
Pete, they are National Wetlands, so what do they call under?
The FWS, not the NPS.
Endangered mice? Non-searchable PDFs? Acorn, for Christ sakes Acorn!!!
These are the big three unsubstantiated "facts" in the stimulus package being pushed by All Wingnut Media for the last week.
Each has been refuted by anyone wiling to do the research.
By 2012 the Whigs and The Bull Moose Parties will have a better chance at running the government that the Republicans, that's if there's anything left by then.
Worrie you must be one of the few in American that has read this bill. Worrie, there is 19.9 Billion listed in this bill as Other. Since you seem to know all about this bill, can you tell me where the "Other" money will going? Here is the break down of the "Other" 4.8 for Tax Provisions, 3.6 for Health, Labor and Education, 1 for energy and Water, 3.9 for Agriculture, Nutrition and Rural Development, 5.3 for Commmerce, Justice and Science, 1.3 for Federal Facilities. I look forward to your information on how this other money will be spent.
OTHER?
Show me how you interpret the word other to mean "Mice? Acorn"
And answer this, are the PDF files searchable? Yes or no.
After you provide those answers, where the hell did I say that I read the entire bill?
You may think that "Other' means money to be spent protecting mice and sent to acorn but it could just as well mean they're going to spend it on dancing shoes for elk or earmuffs for grizzlies.
Worrier, you were the one that seemed to be the expert, I was looking to you for information. You sounded like you had read the bill and was ok with it "if" it where in there to a mouse. Now you telling me you have no clue.
Not an expert but one who was abe to download the PDFs and search them. No mention of Acorn. No mention of mice. And all of the documents searchable.
They were the three points I made and I imagine the points you're arguing.
I have no problem with republicans saying that some of the money set aside for National Parks may go to an agency that is interested in restoring the marsh but that's not what they're saying. They want a visceral response so they go with "there is language in the bill to protect a mouse".
"So how do we know for a fact that the 4.7 Billion that is set aside in this bill for Capital Improvement and Natioal parks will not be used for that purpose? It could, but we just do not for fact."
Mark, even if it is, then it's being used for a larger environmental cause which would help many different species of animals. Why can't it be discussed in that framework instead of as if it was some special cause for one specific type of mouse? It suggests to me that conservatives don't really have a leg to stand on if they have to distort the issue to say "30 million for a mouse! hyuk hyuk!"
Brabantio, this bill was to help Amercian workers get back to work. So "if" any of this money were to go to protecting a mouse, how does that put Americans back to work? It does not, period. This should not be put in the bill, it should have been a different bill.
Are you under the impression that the money will be given directly to the mouse ?
I hope NOT, if that mouse has taken out a mortgage which it knew it could never repay.
How about the money being spent on the three blind mice???
It's probably living in some hole, anyway.
Maybe they're going to hire people to feed the mice. Or someone to shoo cats away from the areas where the mice play.
Sounds like jobs to me, WK. And you haven't answered my question from Friday's Beck/Union thread.
If you don't have the chicken then nobody does.
Good, now at least I know my co-worker didn't set me up with a saucy come-on line or something.
I use online translators. so far I've been able to find online translators for every language except Wingnutese.
I use one of our foremen, Hong.
See BIZARRO PLANET.
Do you think the marsh will restore and maintain itself? You need people to do that.
Yes, they are wet lands, how do you think they started. Dork!
I think instead of "dork", you meant "work" pronouned with a slight accent, in that restoring these marches will actually require JOBS and WORK. Yes nature will do the rest, once you've CLEARED AWAY all the impediments to it!!!
Mary, trust me I said "dork". A wetland is a natural, we do not need to build them, we protect them. I am ok with protecting wetlands, but not in the a bill that was designed to put poeple to work. Yes, I am sure you can find a way to put a person into a job to protect a wetland, but do we need millions to do that, NO! You all will stand here and find any and everyway to accpet this bill, even when you know when it has pork. SHAME on you all. No, I did not like it when Bush spent my money like a drunk sailor in port. He was more of a Democrat then he was ever conservative.
I thought you were just signing your post.
Bush spent your money, Reagan hiked your social security taxes and pretended he wasn't using that to cover his deficits after his "tax cut" fiasco. Both Bushes ran up deficits. Frankly, you've been conned big time into thinking that Republicans have historically or in actuality used fiscal restraint.
If the marsh can restore and maintain itself, then obviously no money will be going to the project. Why are republicans complaining then?
Why is it impossible for a conservative to see rebuilding a despoiled habitat as "employment"? Since PEOPLE will do the work, not mice, not mules or other pack animals, SOMEONE will get paid to do it.
Randy
"In response to a republican claim that jobs were created by the private sector and not the government, she proudly pointed to the fact (as she called it) that during the years 1935 to 1945 the government created thousands and thousands of jobs by paving enough roads to circle the globe 2 dozen times."
24X25,000= 600,000.
"According to the Rough Guides travel book series, there's more than 5.7 million miles of paved highway in the USA."
That's wiki, but that doesn't surprise me if it's true. So what makes that math so absurd?
"Brabantio, this bill was to help Amercian workers get back to work. So "if" any of this money were to go to protecting a mouse, how does that put Americans back to work? It does not, period. This should not be put in the bill, it should have been a different bill."
It's not "protecting a mouse", it's protecting an entire ecosystem. I would imagine that requires some actual effort, which would be work.
In regards to
" it wasn't just Republicans calling this pork "
Some of the people who label things as pork are disregarding the return on investment to the American people. For example, "protect the salt marsh harvest mouse" includes projects to improve water quality, projects that provide recreation (and recreation dollars), and projects that eradicate weed species that threaten to become a hazard to navigation. In the Endangered Species Act, Congress specifically included actions to protect the ecosystems the endangered species depend on; that just happens to protect the ecosystems that HUMANS depend on, too. I don't consider human health and safety or a prosperous economy to be "pork". The real debate should center on which projects will give the highest return on investment. Republicans dismiss many quite lucrative investments out of hand because the investments also provide benefits to people who pay less of the costs, while ignoring the overall benefit to the nation. They also tend to ignore the costs to society that have been transferred from the responsibility of the people who made the mess, figuring that those costs shouldn't be borne by people who help the economy, even though the externalized costs reduce the net economic benefits to nothing. See "The Tragedy of the Commons"
Looking at the figures, it looks to me like the California Coastal Conservancy, a state agency recomended $30 million foward "shovel ready" projects.
The questions that come to my mind are the following.
Why should the federal government pay for these projects? Why not the people who live there pay for it since they will benefit. Speaking of benefits, just what are the benefits of spending $7,500 an acre for 4,000 acres.
Are those typical costs for converting former wetlands back into wetlands?
Of what 'stimulus' are they to the economy? (Okay, I know $30 million will stimulate someone's pocketbook but will that give us the most economic 'bang' for the buck?
Why is this environmental spending pork project in a stimulus bill?
Why should the federal government pay for these projects? Why not the people who live there pay for it since they will benefit.
I suppose you're right, the budget could really be kept in check if the Fed only backed projects that were not in any states.Sort of a wacky approach, but not surprising coming from you.
AA, you do quite a bit of whining that people here don't take you seriously and don't engage in reasonable discussion with you.I think this is a good illustration of why that is.
You start off with a bunch of questions,some of which have been addressed in the MMFA item and the comments, some of which are just vague rhetoricals based on your own pre-programmed responses to anything non-Republican.
Then you finish off by declaring something "pork" (as you've been instructed to) when you've just finished admitting that you don't understand anything that's happening.
Just something to think about the next time you're bewildered that your comments are usually responded to with jokes. And this is you at your best, not even lying,plagiarizing or insulting, just confused.
Did I read Barney's post correctly?
Isn't he one of the biggest advocates for the US Federal Government spending $12 Billion a month for the War in Iraq?
Why not the people who live there pay for it since they will benefit?
Worrierking, it is laughable that you need to go off-topic and bring up ancient history. It only shows that you have no point. I am of the opinion... juvenile insults... a tempest in a teapot... do you not see that....
Ouch, I can't do the Barney impression, it make my brain go mushy. I do like that he supports billions for Iraqis, but no money for the United States, except where individual states don't benefit. Huh?
Maybe he thinks it should all be spent on areas that are not in states, like DC?
Yes, the federal government should pay for it because it will create jobs.
This article says anywhere from $3,500 to $80,000 per acre depending on the work that has to be done.
Because it will create jobs.
No money in the stimulus for San Francisco mice
It might be helpful to ascertain what, exactly, is the Republican definition of "pork". Judging from the posts I've read here, and the blathering from the Congressional Republican robots, any spending which is not Defense related is either "pork" or "socialism".
To heck with letting their words define it. Let's make them define it with their actions by making every vote on this bill really mean something other than political posturing...
Make each district eligible for stimulus dollars based upon their representative's vote on the bill. If the Republican pork hounds really don't want their share of federal bacon for their districts, they can vote 'no'. Just that simple. Then watch them go home and explain it to their broke, unemployed and foreclosed constituents. I'd order pay-per-view to see a reality show like that.
"... Judging from the posts I've read here, and the blathering from the Congressional Republican robots, any spending which is not Defense related is either "pork" or "socialism"." Yea Nerz I saw on Hardball today a Repugnican lawmaker say just that, the the Democrats could have gotten more cons to support the stimulus if the spending was for defense and the military, to him any spending on people who don't pay taxes(his words not mine) is welfare. Harold Ford had to point out to him that working people need relief. It disgust me that these cons talk about how their for the working man but never seem to miss an oportunity to slander efforts to help lower wage workers(it's a lie that they don't pay taxes)as welfare or socialism.
This for pros2pros2940: I really would like to get a link to that ruling about Fox and the whistle-blower. This is, after all, the core of Media Matters' mission statement. Where can I find this?
Don't we all have to keep an open mind, with regard to scrutiny of that type of spending? Don't we expect our media to scrutinize our government? Isn't that their job?